- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:30:26 -0400
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: <love26@gorge.net>, "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Charles, Thanks for the clarification on what should go in the audio description. My question though is: When is an audio description required? For example, the following 2 sites have videos: Movie trailers: http://www.apple.com/trailers/ TV clips: http://webcenter.bigbrother2000.aol.com/entertainment/NON/video.html Do all the videos at these sites require an audio description? Can anyone suggest a video that does not require an audio description? Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca> Cc: <love26@gorge.net>; "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3 > Err, the flak isn't at you, it is a statement about the proposal. Actually, > whatever priority it is, the author, or some further editor, has to decide to > put in description. The user may discover that they have no idea what is > going on, or they may not even be aware of it. > > So I would suggest a simple test is that if the auditory description allows > important details to escape notice, then it is inadequate. Reading the > transcript of this may be enough for someone who knows the video itself. > > As Geoff said, description need not be enormous, but does need to convey what > the video conveys. In the example used earlier of Sinead O'Connor, an opening > description of how it looks "Sinead O'Connor, head shaved, sings, visible > only from the neck up" and at the critical moment "she sheds a single > tear" may suffice. If a teacher were to use the video to exlain lighting > effects, (under the "fair use" provisions of international copyright > treaties) it would be reasonable to expect them to add the relevant > commentary, which is in fact what one would expect them to add in a classroom > situation anyway. > > As an alternative consider the stage directions given for most plays - a few > lines to set a scene, a few key details. Not often enough done at the moment, > but hardly a gargantuan task. > > Charles McCN > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote: > > "Instead I think that for practical reasons we should change this from a > priority 1 to a priority 2." > > I knew I was going to catch flack for this proposal but thought it needed to > be said. > > If we leave it as a priority 1 then we're in the position of letting the > user decide if the video content requires a synchronized audio description. > So when is an audio description required? > > a) The a/v presentation itself is important to the user's well being. > b) The a/v presentation itself is important to the culture. > c) The audio track does not adequately describe the video. > d) Other suggestions?? > > Can anyone suggest a site that has an synched audio description for an a/v > presentation? > > Chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net> > To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> > Cc: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "Wendy A Chisholm" > <wendy@w3.org>; "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 12:13 PM > Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3 > > > > CMcCN: "Hmmm. I am absolutely opposed to this reasoning" > > > > WL: I second the notion. Just because there's a huge body of > > inaccessible material is no excuse for condoning it. > > > > -- > > Love. > > ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE > > http://dicomp.pair.com > > > > > -- > -- > Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI > Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 > Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia >
Received on Monday, 21 August 2000 15:30:35 UTC